aa5874

Again, you are merely spreading propaganda.

In fact, Justin's Martyr Apology may be the ONLY Apologetic Text where the author Properly Identified himself.

Examine the NT and ALL Apologetic Sources and IT IS extremely difficult to find any author whose name, parents, origin or abode and recipients are detailed.


First Apology The father of Justin was Priscus, his grandfather was Bacchius, and they were natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine.

No other known Apologetic Source including the NT comes close to Justin's introduction in "First Apology".

stephan huller

Now that all our distinguished men of letters have chimed in, let me take the conversation somewhere more interesting. First, let me observe that just as the dopey religious believers spend all their efforts to 'prove' that any oddity leaves things 'just fine' with respect to the inherited tradition, most of the yahoos at this forum want to use any oddity to 'disprove' the status quo.

My interest here is to understand all the reasons why Justin might not have mentioned Paul. The path to this answer must go through the understanding that Justin's student Tatian used a text later identified as 'the Diatessaron.' Why does this matter? Because this text like the Marcionite text is ascribed to no human author.

In other words, it isn't just that Justin didn't cite Paul but more importantly he used a text which avoided mentioning the name of its apostolic author. Is this the same thing? No, but it is probably related nevertheless.

Consider for a moment that Irenaeus makes frequent reference to a group of Marcionites (or a related sect) which denies that the apostle's name is Paul. This sounds very similar to Tertullian's frequent statement that the Marcionites as such deny that gospel is 'according to Paul' (even though they apparently referenced Paul saying 'my gospel' as proof that he used the same text as they did).

In the Dialogues of Adamantius there is a similar reference where Adamantius (the Catholic) questions Megethius (the Marcionite) about whether Paul was at the crucifixion. The point is that there is a text associated with the apostle of the Marcionites but not identified as having a human author (and as such not written by Paul). There are many ways to explain this, but it seems to go hand in hand with (a) Justin's failure to reference Paul in his letters and (b) the neo-Marcionite/Encratite sect referenced by Irenaeus which denied that the apostle was named Paul.

Also complementary to this discussion is the Letter to Theodore's acknowledgement in some form that our gospel of Mark is according to Peter and moreover the idea that Mark wrote a gospel whose authorship was also shielded - 'deny the gospel is according to Mark.'

At the very least there were a number of gospels where the author's identity was shielded. More likely to me is the idea that the statement of Hippolytus that the Marcionite version of the gospel was according to Mark (and whose authorship was shielded) points to the two gospels being either one and the same or that there were two Marcionite gospels whose relationship (and author) was obscured.

Sheshbazzar

And who was 'Priscus', and who was 'Bacchius' aa?

Duvduv

So what?????? You didn't see proof that the document was actually written by a second century writer named Justin AND you haven't seen any genealogical information or birth certificates, so WHY do you take the church claims at face value uncritically?!!

TedM

Because you can't give a single example showing that similar things existed as what you are claiming. You made the claim of letters to fictional groups regarding issues of importance. In fact you seemed to imply that they were common. I've challenged you to back it up with one simple example from the time. Go ahead and read the book you gave a link to and get back to me. Your Screwtape Letters example is a joke Toto not deserving of any more comment.



Even Earl D says Ignatius letters, if forgeries, were no more than a decade or two later than if real. 1 Clement--apparently you don't know but aren't willing to say any more about the fact that it was written to the Church in Corinth. Revelation supports me because one of the 7 churches was in Ephesus, and traditionally Revelation is considered to have been written in the 1st century in response to the persecution of christians by Domitian. 666 probably referred to Nero who came earlier.



We are talking about the early believers and when they first existed. You claim they did not exist early on. I've given you evidence that they did, and I've challenged you to come up with comparable letters to non-existing groups about issues of supreme importance. The 'indication' I have that these early believers were followers of Paul is the overwhelmingly consistent testimony of the orthodox historical record supporting the idea, including epistles directly from Paul to those same christians which have no support for doubting their authenticity.



SO you are saying that in the history of mankind there was never a church in Ephesus, or Corinth, or Galatia? Of course you aren't saying that. SO, again I ask WHEN those churches --groups of people in those cities that were christians--first existed in quantities large enough to justify sending letters to them or referencing them as significant within the christian community.


Tacitus, Nero's persecution of 64-68 AD, and Suetonius. Such noted historians would not have mentioned the persecution if there were only a few dozen or hundred believers Toto.

aa5874

What??? Can't you figure it out??

Priscus was the Father of Justin.

Bacchius was the Grandfather of Justin.

This is so basic.

Now who are Sheshbazzar??? I read about Justin's father and grandfather but I know no such things about you.

Sheshbazzar

And what was your Source for that information aa?

aa5874

You have presented Arguments from Silence. You have ZERO corroborative evidence for your claims.

Revelation does NOT support you because we just showed that the Muratorian Canon stated quite clearly that Revelation was the EXAMPLE followed by Paul.

You also know that there is NO evidence that Justin used the Pauline writings.

You also know that no actual Pauline writings have been recovered and dated to the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

You have NOTHING in your favor.

TedM

aa, stop. You love to take phrases that describe your hyper-skeptical work and then start using them against the person who introduces them, but you misuse them, as is the case here...

I explained to you several times now what an argument from silence is, and used your 7 arguments from silence as obvious examples, showing your outrageous reliance on them. A lack of corroborative evidence is not an argument from silence. My 3 examples above all DIRECTLY MENTION EARLY CHRISTIANS. That is not silence. That is SOUND. Your claim that Paul didn't exist because Justin didn't mention him is an argument from silence. There is no sound there regarding Paul. See the difference?


All you have to go on is your attempt to dismiss actual 'sound' evidence by appealing to forgeries, interpolations, ghosts, etc.. That's not an argument. That's an agenda driven mishandling of information--just as you did with the obvious orthodox support for Paul by the author of the Muratorian.

Toto

That's not a reason. Besides I referred you to a book of similar things.

I referred to fictional letters. You can click on the Amazon link and read a preview of the book.

I think that the Screwtape Letters are completely on point. They were written by a noted Christian to expound on theological and practical matters, and no one would use them as proof of the existence of Satan.



Revelation says a lot of crazy stuff.


No, we are talking about Paul in particular. There are indications that there were early believers, but no proof that they knew who Paul was. The orthodox "historical record" is based on theological wishes, not actual fact

You keep claiming not to be a Christian, but you seem to swallow Christian propaganda without a qualm.

All I am saying is that letters to alleged churches in Corinth, etc. are not adequate indications that there were such churches.

I find the Tacitus reference quite dubious, and Suetonius does not actually mention Christians. Neither mention Paul. The earliest even marginally reliable mention of Christians is in Pliny's letter, and from that, you would get the impression that Christians were a minor part of the landscape.

But this is about Paul, not some vague undefined early group that were called Christians.